Thread: Buddhists should or shouldn't eat meat?

Originally Posted by billy the kid

Originally Posted by RickThai

seems like that is just your personal opinion,

ok i accept that. there are no written accounts available i take it
all was passed down verbally.

From my limited understanding, Buddhist doctrine was passed down verbally via specially trained people that live in different regions. The people were given different sections of the Buddhist doctrine to memorize, and every so often they would all gather and try to re-build the complete doctrine in order to determine variances and tie together the "big picture".

No doubt, many concepts were changed during interpretation (accidentally and/or deliberately). Eventually, (in Sri Lanka I believe), the doctrine was finally written down.

Like all things that are handed down (even written down), much is lost or changed over a thousand years or so (for better or worse).

Santi,

RickThai

Originally Posted by billy the kid

all their knowledge comes from a book
and all their answers come from a book.

If that were true; and it isn't; that's your opinion and not one I share.
The whole point of Buddha's teaching is not to follow, not to believe (in anything).
So much for chops, eh?

After all is said and done, Buddha was a meat eater, so were his disciples.

It's not a matter of whether a Buddhist should (obliged to) or shouldn't (forbidden) eat meat.

Buddha stated clearly that meat eating was permissible for his disciples (and himself), as long as the meat was not human flesh, or dog, snake, horse, elephant, tiger, leopard, bear, or if an animal was specifically killed for the monks to eat.

Meat that was offered as food to the monks could be eaten other than the above mentioned animal meat, Monks were not to choose which foods they preferred, or reject any food offered to them by the locals, but to accept their offerings of surplus or leftover food, meat or vegetables.

Some Buddhists choose to be vegetarian, principally Mahayanists, a later development of Buddhism, but early Buddhists were not vegetarian at all.

Vegetarianism is a personal and cultural choice, not a Buddhist precept.
If vegetarians give of their surplus vegetable foods to monks, it is vegetarian and the monk must accept that for food.
If a meat eater gives his surplus of meat to monks, they must accept that and not be choosy.

Originally Posted by ENT

After all is said and done, Buddha was a meat eater, so were his disciples.

It's not a matter of whether a Buddhist should (obliged to) or shouldn't (forbidden) eat meat.

Buddha stated clearly that meat eating was permissible for his disciples (and himself), as long as the meat was not human flesh, or dog, snake, horse, elephant, tiger, leopard, bear, or if an animal was specifically killed for the monks to eat.

Meat that was offered as food to the monks could be eaten other than the above mentioned animal meat, Monks were not to choose which foods they preferred, or reject any food offered to them by the locals, but to accept their offerings of surplus or leftover food, meat or vegetables.

Some Buddhists choose to be vegetarian, principally Mahayanists, a later development of Buddhism, but early Buddhists were not vegetarian at all.

Vegetarianism is a personal and cultural choice, not a Buddhist precept.
If vegetarians give of their surplus vegetable foods to monks, it is vegetarian and the monk must accept that for food.
If a meat eater gives his surplus of meat to monks, they must accept that and not be choosy.

Well said. Monks are supposed to take and eat what is offered, without complaint or preference. This fulfills the cycle of alms-giving. If a monk was to refuse an alms offering made in good faith (i.e. animal/fish not killed specifically for the monk), then the monk would be denying the alms-giver the opportunity to make merit, which would be a bad thing for the monk.